P (a child) was a ble to open what was supposed to be a child-resistant bottle of washing powder sold by Tesco’s and the bottle manufactured by another company (D1 and D2). P ate the powder and was ill and Ds were sued on his behalf. The company found D1 and D2 liable under the 1987 Act.
Laws LJ: The case came down to s.3(1) of the act, that “There is a defect in a product for the purposes of this Part if the safety of the product is not such as persons generally are entitled to expect …” Here, the public were entitled to expect that the bottle would be ,more difficult to open than a standard bottle top, which it was. Therefore the product was not defective.